The case holding that where a State property loan contract is concluded after the expiration of the acquisition period for State-owned land, it shall be deemed to waive the benefit of completion of acquisition.

After the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition by the occupant of State-owned land, the occupant and the Republic of Korea entered into a loan agreement for State-owned property with the purport that the occupant would not assert the right to file a complaint on the said land. If the occupant paid the loan fee and the indemnity for occupying and using land without title before the loan agreement, it is reasonable to deem that the occupant actively expressed his/her intent to waive the benefits of prescriptive acquisition after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition by concluding the loan agreement,

Articles 184(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na663 delivered on March 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The court below held that since the Plaintiff's possession of the site of this case was converted into possession independently from January 1, 1965 pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property, and Article 5 of the Addenda, the period of prescriptive acquisition expires on January 1, 1985. However, in full view of the evidence, on February 17, 1988, the Daegu Special Metropolitan City, which represented the Plaintiff and the Defendant, concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on the land of this case with the term of lease from January 1, 198 to December 31, 198, the loan fee was set annually as eight thousand and eight hundred won, and the Plaintiff concluded an annual loan agreement with the Plaintiff on the land of this case with the duty of due care, and the Plaintiff paid the loan fee to the original state within the designated period after the expiration of the lease period, and the Plaintiff did not claim that the loan agreement with the Plaintiff was unlawful on the land of this case from February 1, 1980 to 197.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)